
Class 



S_tim_. 



Author 



Title 



Book.*.. 



V3\4? 



Imprint 



tt»— 87M9-* 9PO 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
Second Session 

on 



H. R. 13005 



MARCH 7 and 13, 1914 



STATEMENTS OF 



DR. H. M. SMITH, HON. MARTIN B. MADDKN 
and HON. JOHN A. PETERS 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1914 






COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

House of Representatives. 

sixty-third congress. 

(Committee room, gallery floor, west,corridor. Telephone 230.) 

HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia, Chairman. 



WILLIAM G. SHARP, Ohio. 
CYRUS CLINE, Indiana. 
JEFFERSON M. LEVY, New York. 
JAMES M. CURLEY, Massachusetts. 
J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland. 
ROBERT E. DIFENDERFER, Pennsylvania 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
CHARLES M. STEDMAN, North Carolina. 
EDWARD W. TOWNSEND, New Jersey. 
B. P. HARRISON, Mississippi. 

Robert Catlett, Clerk. 

B. F. Oden, Assistant Clerk. 
2 



CHARLES B. SMITH, New York. 
JOHN R. WALKER, Georgia. 
HORACE W. VAUGHAN, Texas. 
HENRY A. COOPER, Wisconsin. 
RICHARD BARTHOLDT, Missouri. 
GEORGE W. FAIRCHILD, New York. 
STEPHEN G. PORTER, Pennsylvania. 
W. D. B. AINEY, Pennsylvania. 
JOHN J. ROGERS, Massachusetts. 
HENRY W. TEMPLE, Pennsylvania. 



0, OF 0, 

JAN IS 1< 




b" 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 



Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, March 7, 19U- 
The committee, being in session, proceeded to the consideration 
of the fisheries bill, H. R. 13005. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, a conference was held downstairs in 
Gen. Sherwood's office in regard to this fisheries bill, and Mr. Mad- 
den, Gen. Sherwood, and others wished to make a request in connec- 
tion with that bill. 

Mr. Madden. A great many people, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen 
of the committee, have asked if it would not be possible for this com- 
mittee to hear them on the desirability of modification of these regu- 
lations in the treaties between the United States and Canada relat- 
ing to the fisheries question. There are so many and the interests 
involved are so great that it seemed to us that it would be a wise 
thing to hear them. 

Mr. Smith. The suggestion was made that if the committee could 
hear them there might be an agreement. 

The Chairman. This agreement is an international agreement. 
How are we going to modify it? We have to reject it or accept it, 
Mr. Madden. There are two regulations which are very obnoxious, 
and it will undoubtedly, if adopted, destroy the American fisheries 
industry, in which several thousand men are employed and a large 
amount of money is invested. 

The Chairman. Has the fish commission of Ohio got her&? 
Mr. Madden. I think not. 

The Chairman. How would it do for me to invite Dr. Hugh Smith 
to come over here and have a conference with you gentlemen? 

Mr. Madden. I think we may say we have had a conference with 

him 

The Chairman. What about the Canadian commissioner? 
Mr. Madden. If we could get the Canadian fishmen and Dr. Smith 
together we might con e to some sort of agreement. 

The Chairman. They might reach that agreement now. I know 
they contemplate making changes. Why could we not do that before 
we get the bill on the floor? 

Mr. Harrison. How do you propose, Mr. Chairman, to get the 
bill up again? 

The Chairman. We can get it up by a rule. 

Mr. Townsend. Was there a proposition to have the Canadian fish 
commissioner come over here? 

Mr. Madden. There was no proposition of that kind. We thought 
we would come and talk to vou gentlemen about it. and see whether 



4 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

there was an understanding that would insure the modification of 
two of these regulations. 

The Chairman. The State Department takes the position that the 
schedule has to be adopted in whole or revoked. 

Mr. Madden. It was not before, you know. It was adopted in 
modified form. 

The Chairman. Never adopted at all. 

Mr. Madden. I think it was. We could adopt it except for these 
two regulations. 

The Chairman. If you could amend it in one particular you could 
amend it in 500 particulars. 

Mr. Madden. I might say I was here last September upon another 
matter involved in the tariff law, and we were told, " We are sorry 
you came so late, but just as soon as the regular session comes on we 
will give you what you want " 

The Chairman. They said as soon as this schedule was adopted. 

Mr. Madden. I was referring to another subject, showing how 
difficult it is to get action quickly. It was affecting the wine question. 
They said, " Just as soon as Congress convenes in regular session we 
will repeal the free-brandy feature of the McKinley law." It has not 
been repealed, and nobody up to this time has made a move. 

We know you are very busy and do not wish to detain you longer. 
We just want to leave that thought with you. 

(The committee thereupon proceeded to other business.) 



House or Representatives, 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Friday, March 13, 191 k. 
The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry D. Flood 
(chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Dr. Smith, the committee wants to ask you some 
questions about trap nets. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF FISHER- 
IES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, may I sa} 7 a word or two about this 
Passamaquoddy Bay regulation? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Dr. Smith. I made inquiries from men now in the Bureau of 
Fisheries who investigated that region and whose investigation was 
used as a basis for this regulation, and they advised me that so far 
as they know at this time, and for a number of years, there are no 
v recognized spawning grounds for herring on the American side of 
the border. In former years there were important spawning grounds, 
but those schools of spawning fish have been broken up and the 
recognized spawning grounds now in this region are in the Canadian 
waters. There are recognized spawning grounds in Passamaquoddy 
Bay, and the fish come in there in enormous schools and are in a 
spawning condition and should be allowed to deposit their eggs un- 
molested, because it is the progeny of these spawning fishes upon 
which depends the welfare of this whole industry, worth several 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 5 

million dollars, and I can not conceive of any reasonable objection 
to regulation of that kind. The principal spawning grounds for 
herring in this Passamaquoddy Bay region are beyond the limits of 
the treaty around the island of Grand Manan and further to the 
eastward. It was the hope of the negotiators of the treaty and of 
the commissioners that the limits of the treaty would be extended so 
as to embrace these spawning grounds, and I regard that regulation 
as largely precautionary. 

Mi-. Linthicum. Why do you mention Passamaquoddy Bay? I 
have not heard anything about that. 

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Peters wants to be heard about that. 

Mr. Peters. Does the matter of Passamaquoddy Bay come up now ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Peters. Would the committee be willing to hear me just a 
moment on that question? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ANDREW PETERS, A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE. 

Mr. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I represent the most eastern district 
in Maine, which includes Eastport and Kennebec — all that country 
with all its enormous fishing interests. 

Many millions of dollars are invested in the canning business 
in that district, and since this matter has become acute I have received 
about a cord and a half of telegrams asking me, among other things, 
what is meant by the term in the regulations, " Territorial waters of 
Passamaquoddy Bay." Now, I have been very assiduous in trying 
to find out what it means and I have been talking with Dr. Smith 
about it, and without giving any official belief he was inclined to the 
belief that it was limited to a certain section of geography which I 
will show you on the map. This [indicating on map] is the eastern 
part of Maine, and right there is Eastport, and all this country is a 
tremendous fishing country. Of course this is Canada, New Bruns- 
wick, and the boundary line runs up through this head here [indicat- 
ing] and through this channel up here [indicating] and up through 
the St. Croix River to Passamaquoddy Bay. The " Coast 
Pilot,' 1 which is an authority on maritime waters, issued by the Gov- 
ernment, bounds Passamaquoddy Bay on the south by Deer Island. 
Dr. Smith says that for an authority as to Passamaquoddy Bay 
boundary you should go to Dr. Tittmann. He said, " I am on the 
Boundary Commission, and I regard Passamaquoddy Bay as begin- 
ning with the end of my boundary line which is right here [indicat- 
ing] and when I get here [indicating] I am 10 miles south of what 
is generally supposed to be Passamaquoddy Bay." Now, in the 
report of the commissioner he does not suppose that Passamaquoddy 
Bay comes down here as Dr. Tittmann does, evidently, because he 
says in the end of his report, " I would also call special attention to 
the recommendation " 

The Chairman (interposing). Who is that you quote? 

Mr. Peters. This is David Starr Jordan. 

The Chairman. It was Dr. Smith who succeeded him. 

Mr. Peters. I suppose so. 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



6 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Peters. But these regulations were gotten up by Dr. Jordan. 
The Chairman. Mr. Peters, what bearing does that question of 
the boundary line of Passamaquoddy Bay have on these regulations? 
Mr. Peters. I do not think that these regulations should go into 
effect until they are made certain. I believe that when there is a 
heavy penalty imposed upon these gentlemen for violating these regu- 
lations that, at least, it ought to be made clear to them the scope of 
the territory to which these regulations apply. 

The Chairman. Do you not think they would be safe against 
penalties for the violation of this law if the enforcement of this 
law was in the hands of Dr. Smith and a division under his bureau, 
when Dr. Smith and his predecessor, Dr. Jordan, put a construction 
upon what is Passamaquoddy Bay? 

Mr. Peters. I think they might be as safe as some others in the 
hands of Dr. Smith. 

The Chairman. But we can not make all laAvs fit Dr. Tittman's 
ideas of where the boundary line is. 

Mr. Peters. Yes, sir; but at least you could satisfy us as to what 
the boundaries are. 

Mr. Sharp. How much latitude is allowed between what you con- 
sider the strict construction under this treaty and what you consider 
the geographical boundary ? 

Mr. Peters. About 10 miles. 

Mr. Sharp. How does that apply to the whole amount of water? 
Is it a matter of 5 or 10 per cent? 

Mr. Peters. Oh, more than that; if the territorial waters of Passa- 
maquoddy Bay come down here [indicating], then it would include 
nearly as much again as the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay. 

The Chairman. What regulation injuriously affects these fisher- 
men below this line that we all think is the southern boundary line of 
Passamaquoddy Bay ? 

Mr. Peters. For instance, the one in regard to lobsters. There is 
a large lobster fishery there. 

The Chairman. AVhat regulation is that? 

Mr. Peters. Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25. All of the lobster regulations. 

The Chairman. How would you change it ? 

Mr. Peters. I would change it by having a specification in the 
regulations saying what Passamaquoddy Bay is. 

The Chairman. I mean, would you change these regulations if 
they did apply to these southern waters? 

Mr. Peters. I do not know that I would change them at all. 

The Chairman. Then what is the trouble about them? 

Mr. Peters. I think the people should be entitled to know where 
they apply. 

The Chairman. To whom can they apply now ? 

Mr. Peters. They can apply to Dr. Smith. 

Dr. Smith. That is a question of geography. 

Mr. Peters. Is Dr. Smith willing to take the responsibility? 

Mr. Rogers. What do you understand to be meant by the term 
" territorial waters " ? 

Mr. Peters. The only thing I can make out of it is that it means 
inside of the 3-mile limit. 

Mr. Cline. I understand that Dr. Tittman is on the International 
Boundary Commission? 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 7 

Mi*. Peters. Yes. 

Mr. Cline. Has not the boundary line been established in Passa- 
maquoddy Bay ? 

Mr. Peters. The line that is going to be established runs through 
Passamaquoddy Bay which, he says, goes down into the Bay of 
Fundy. 

Mr. Cline. Has the line been officially established ? 

Mr. Peters. I think not. 

The Chairman. He is establishing the boundary line between the 
United States and Canada. 

Mr. Peters. He is on the job now. 

Mr. Cline. That extends out to the 3-mile limit ? 

Mr. Peters. Yes. Now, I do not know whether these regulations 
about lobsters are proper for the location down there or not. I notice 
that Dr. Smith says in his hearing that these regulations are unsatis- 
factory and obsolete. The provision is made in this bill to immedi- 
ately begin revising these regulations. Now, the revision is to be re- 
ported at the next session of this Congress — that is, in December. 
This bill provides that these regulations shall go into effect January 
1, 1915, which is a very few days after Congress convenes, taking out 
the recess. What I would favor is the amending of the bill so as to 
delay the date at which the report shall be made to March 1, or April 
1, largely for the purpose of permitting all persons to be heard who 
are interested in the matter. It seems to me that no harm will re- 
sult and much good will result from that, because if they are to be 
changed, as they clearly must be changed, why should we hurry the 
putting into effect of regulations which are unsatisfactory and in- 
definite? Why not postpone the regulations until a little later, when 
we will be able to examine Dr. Smith's suggestions and at the same 
time it will give our people an opportunity to be heard. 

The .Chairman. You do not think that Congress will have an op- 
portunity to act in December? 

Mr. Peters. I do not think there will be time between the 1st of 
December and the 1st of January to pass these regulations. 

Mr. Cline. Why did not your people raise this question before this 
late hour? 

Mr. Peters. I do not know. 

Mr. Cline. This matter has been before Congress for the last three 
or four years. 

Mr. Peters. I do not know, sir. I was only elected practically the 
other day — that is, last fall, and my predecessor died in May and I 
did not know anything about this matter. It is strange matter to me. 

Mr. Cooper. When was this matter first called to your attention? 

Mr. Peters. By a telegram a few days ago. 

Mr. Cooper. How long ago? 

Mr. Peters. I should say a week ago. I have been telegraphed 
and written ever since. They are writing me also in regard to 
whether different things are to be construed one way or the other — 
whether the provision that a man can not use a dragnet or seine 
within 500 feet of the shore or another man's weir will supersede 
the State law which says he can not do it at all. But it seems to me 
that where the regulations are admitted to be unsatisfactory and 
obsolete, and where parties having such large interests as those I 
represent desire to be heard in revising the regulations, at least they 



8 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

ought to have the opportunity before the law goes into effect to be 
heard on the question of the regulations. Now, I do not oppose 
the principle of the bill. I suppose the main thing to be accom- 
plished is to adopt the principle of international control of boundary 
waters. That principle will be sufficiently established if you pass 
the bill no matter whether you fix the date of the effect of the law as 
January 1 or April 1. There can not be any harm in allowing the 
present regulations to remain in force until proper consideration 
has been given to revising them, and there might be some harm in 
hurriedly putting into force new regulations like these. The prin- 
ciple will be put in force if we pass the bill. Let that date be Jan- 
uary 1, and then we will be able to get our people here to be heard. 

Mr. Cooper. Next session is the short session, and if you make the 
date March 1 that will necessarily carry it over to next December, 
the following December, because it will be very easy to bring up ob- 
jections in the coming December and prevent any consideration of 
this bill in the short session. 

The Chairman. He suggested first ■ 

Mr. Peters (interposing). The same thing Avould apply if the date 
is made May 1 instead of January 1. 

Mr. Cooper. Oh, no ; we might work it through. 

The Chairman. His suggestion was first the 1st of March. 

Mr. Peters. Well, I forgot about Congress adjourning. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, the 1st of March would carry it over to the fol- 
lowing Congress. 

Mr. Vaughan. Of course the regulations would go into effect if 
nothing was done. 

Mr. Cooper. I think he said April 1. 

Mr. Peters. I forgot about Congress adjourning. I said March 1. 

Mr. Sharp. May I ask you this question, Mr. Peters? What, in a 
general way, would you say about the strictness of the Maine laws to 
protect all kinds of fish there? 

Mr. Peters. Well, they are more strict in some respects than some 
of these regulations. For instance, we do not allow any purse seines 
or dragnets at all. These regulations provide that they may be used 
outside of the 500-foot limit from the shore. 

The Chairman. I just suggested to Mr. Sharp that if these regu- 
lations do not go into effect before the 1st of March it might meet 
the objections of the Ohio people, as they would have the whole ses- 
sion of Congress to have the regulations revised. 

Mr. Lixtiiicum. What is the value of the fish in Passamaquoddy 
Bay? 

Mr. Peters. Oh, millions of dollars — well, not in that fishery, but 
in Kennebec and all down there. This bill is for the purpose of pre- 
serving for future generations the fishing industry. We take a broad 
attitude to-day. We want the fisheries preserved and we believe that 
the only way to do it is by joint control of the boundary waters, and 
we believe that we should go slowly in order that justice may be done 
and rights may be preserved. The people down there are jealous; 
they say the Canadians always get the best of us in these deals. 
Now, we do not want the Canadians to get the best of us in these 
deals. 

Mr. Sharp. Well, as long as we can get a treaty signed, even if it 
did give Canada the advantage, would you not be in favor of it? 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 9 

Mr. Peters. I think we should get a treaty through. 

Mr. Cooper. Do not let the sarcasm of the gentleman from Ohio 
affect you. You said you were perfectly satisfied with these regu- 
lations. 

Mr. Peters. I beg your pardon : I did not say so. 

Mr. Cooper. Except at the time 

Mr. Peters (interposing). I said nothing of the kind. I said I 
was satisfied with the principle of the bill. 

Mr. Cooper. You said that the regulations were indefinite and ob- 
solete, but that they are all right. Then the chairman said, " If the 
regulations are all right, what is your objection?" And you said 
they were all right. 

Mr. Peters. Well, I did not say that the regulations are all right. 
The doctor says that they are obsolete and ineffective. 

The Chairman. Which ones? 

Mr. Peters. Well, ask him. As far as my interest goes, they are 
indefinite, because they do not tell our fishermen whether they are 
violating the law when they are fishing at that point [indicating on 
map], or 10 miles below that point. 

Mr. Cooper. If they are good regulations, if they are all right, etc., 
why should you object to them? 

Mr. Peters. If they were all right we would be glad to have them, 
but they are not all right. 

The Chairman. In what particular? 

Mr. Peters. Because they are indefinite. 

The Chairman. As to what? Passamaquoddy Bay? 

Mr. Peters. Well, that is one thing. 

The Chairman. That is one thing? 

Mr. Peters. Yes; that is only one thing. 

Mr. Vatjghan. It is not the fault of the regulations, but the fault of 
the parties disagreeing as to what constitutes Passamaquoddy Bay. 

Mr. Peters. I think that is the fault of the regulations. 

The Chairman. Nobody ever heard of any disagreement until Dr. 
Tittman came in here and said it should be somewhere else. 

Mr. Peters. Well, the moment that question is raised there is a 
disagreement. 

The Chairman. Have not all these waters down below Passama- 
quoddy Bay a distinct name? 

Mr. Peters. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I understand all of them have a distinct name. 

Mr. Vatjghan. What is Passamaquoddy Bay is a matter of fact and 
not a matter of definition for us. 

Mr. Peters. That is what we want. We want you to say that the 
waters from one point to another constitute Passamaquoddy Bay. 
That is a matter of detail. 

The Chairman. You know where Passamaquoddy Bay is. 

Mr. Peters. Yes ; but Dr. Tittman says I am wrong about it. 

The Chairman. What is the boundary of this water that Dr. Titt- 
man says may be in the territorial waters of Passamaquoddy Bay ? 

Mr. Peters. There is no mark on it. Here [indicating on map] is 
the island of Grand Manan. This is the Bay of Fundy. There is a 
mark down here [indicating]. 

Mr. Cline. All you are objecting to is that we have not defined 
what Passamaquoddy Bay is? 



10 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEKIES. 

Mr. Peters. That is all on that point. 

Mr. Cline. That is a matter for the committee to determine? 

Mr. Peters. Yes, sir ; in framing the regulations. 

The Chairman. We can not change the geography. 

Mr. Peters. I assume that you do not intend to change the regula- 
tions at all in any respect on account of their being approved by both 
Governments, 

Mr. Smith. What harm could come to your people up there if these 
regulations were put through as they are now? 

Mr. Peters. They would be subject to fine for fishing in waters 
that they did not know were included in the treaty waters. 

The Chairma x. But you say the regulations in your State are much 
stricter than these regulations. 

Mr. Peters. In one particular respect they are, as to fishing with 
dragnets. 

The Chairman. Well, in what other respects? 

Mr. Peters. As to lobsters and spawning grounds. 

The Chairman. There is no spawning ground down below that. 

Mr. Peters. Well, there might not be, but there are surely lobsters. 

The Chairman. Are you not satisfied that there are no spawning 
grounds south of that point where the disputed line is? 

Mr. Peters. Well, I know that Dr. Smith says there are not, and I 
have great confidence in his authority. The people down there want 
these schools to have definite spawning grounds. These people want 
to know whether the Government has authority to establish a spawn- 
ing ground. I do not know enough about the fishing business to 
know. I only know that the people down there are very anxious to be 
heard. All I ask is that sufficient time be given before these obsolete 
regulations go into effect, before the new regulations are made; I ask 
that the bill go into effect March 1, 1915, instead of December 1, 1915. 

Mr. Cline. Would that suit you? 

Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. I say that no evils can be compromised, and 
our people who have millions of dollars, though not at stake, are very 
much concerned. 

Mr. Fairchild. When does the fishing season begin up there ? 

Mr. Peters. Not before March. There will not be much fishing, 
anyway, in that part of the country. 

Mr. Cooper. You said that you wanted to know whether the State 
law which prohibited the doing of certain things beyond — what limit & 

Mr. Peters. The 500-foot limit, 

Mr. Cooper. Would be superseded, abrogated, rescinded or re- 
pealed by the new regulations. The regulations state : 

It is understood by the International Fisheries Commission that all statutes 
nnd laws relating to the protection and preservation of the fisheries in the 
treaty waters lawful y passed, or that hereafter may be lawfully passed in tht 
United States or in the Dominion of Canada, shall have full validity in sS far 
as he said statutes and laws are not in conflict with these regulation^ ?Vnd 
that these regulations shall not be construed as permitting fislnn? ai any times 
or places or by any methods or appliances prohibited by such laws. 

Now your objection to these regulations is based on the indefinite- 
ness as to whether or not the State law can be enforced » 

Mr. Peters. No; my objection is not that, but it is' that von ran 
not tell where this line of boundary lies. J want tnls undeTtood" 
That there are probably many other objections to these regulations 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 11 

that my people know about, but which I do not know about ana 
that Dr. Smith does not know about. 

The Chairman. Well, let Dr. Smith say whether he does or not. 
Is that your opinion, Doctor? 

Dr. Smith. I made that remark in a general way, because it is well 
known that some of these regulations along this northern border are 
obsolete and unsatisfactory ; but I did not have this particular region 
in Maine in mind at the time, and I do not know whether that would 
apply to that region. 

The Chairman. He said some of these regulations were obsolete, 
and he has always said that. 

Mr. Peters. You propose to reexamine all these regulations? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; and redraft them where necessary. 

Mr. Peters. Do you see any objection to going into it 

Mr. Linthicum (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a 
motion at this point. On page 2, lines 14 and 15, strike out the words 
" January first " and insert in lieu thereof " March fifth." 

Mr. Smith. In this particular connection it does not make any dif- 
ference whatever. 

The Chairman. All in favor— — 

Mr. Cooper (interposing). Now, one moment. As I understand it, 
if we do not pass a law accepted in the terms in which it was agreed 
upon by the commissioners and presented to the respective Govern- 
ments, it will result in sending the whole thing back for new nego- 
tiations. 

The Chairman. The date is fixed in the bill, but not in the regula- 
tions. That has never been agreed upon by the two Governments. 

Mr. Linthicum. We fixed that date ourselves. 

Mr. Cooper. I thought the Canadians fixed the date. 

The Chairman. Oh, no; they fixed upon a much earlier date some 
years ago. 

Mr. Sharp. This bill is merely to give effect to the provisions of 
the treaty between the two Governments and prescribe the time. 
But, Mr. Cooper, might I reply to your statement in part by saying 
that we had some experience along that line in the case of fur seals, 
and after the dates had been fixed a number of times the time limit 
of the closed season, having been first fixed at 10 years, was staved off 
and finally was made 5 years by the Senate. 

The Chairman. That was a rather different situation. The seal 
skins were netting the Government some revenue. 

Mr. Linthicum. The reason I suggest that amendment is this: 
I do not think Ave can adopt the new regulations by the 1st day of 
of January, and if we do not, but adopt them by the 1st day of 
March or the 5th day of March, it would be merely a question of the 
old regulations going into effect on the 1st day of January until the 
time the bill was passed. I think it would be absolutely impossible 
for us to pass these regulations at both ends of the Capitol before the 
4th or 5th of March. 

Mr. Cooper. That would carry the incoming of the new regula- 
tions over until next December. 

Mr. Linthicum. No; if the new regulations are not put into effect 
then the old regulations take effect on the 5th of March. 

Mr. Cooper. But you would have no opportunity to enact the new 
regulations until the 1st Monday in December. 



12 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. You would have three months. 

Mr. Cooper. Not if this goes over to the 5th of March. 

The Chairman. If these gentlemen report to Congress on the 
first day of the session according to Mr. Linthicum's amendment we 
would have three months to act on their report. 

Mr. Cline. And to perfect the regulations. 

Mr. Cooper. I do not understand so.' Mr. Peters has asked us to 
put it over so that his people would have abundant time to be heard. 

Mr. Peters. To put it over until next summer. 

Mr. Linthicum. They have to make their report before the first 
of next session, and this gives us the whole of the session. 

Mr. Cooper. I understand that, but I misunderstood Mr. Peters's 
request. 

Mr. Vaughan. The old regulations will be in force until the new 
regulations take effect. 

The Chairman. Mr. Linthicum made a motion to strike out " the 
1st of January " and insert " the 5th of March," wherever it occurs 
in the bill, as to the time the present regulations go into effect if 
there is no change. 

(The question was taken on Mr. Linthicum's amendment and the 
amendment was agreed to.) 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Peters, is that what you wanted? 

Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF 

FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Dr. Smith, the question before the committee yes- 
terday was the suspension of regulation 48, in reference of trap nets, 
until your commission could investigate the question and report to 
Congress, and Congress had acted upon your recommendation. The 
committee wants some information about trap nets. 

Mr. Linthicum. Doctor, there has been a great deal of talk about 
suspending the operation of regulation No. 48 until the new regula- 
tions can be adopted. Now, I have been opposing that upon the 
ground that they are afraid that you might not be able to get together 
on any new regulations as to trap nets, and in that way we would 
never get any regulations. But I am told that you find there is no 
objection to the use of trap nets, and if there is no objection to the 
use of trap nets in all international waters, then I have no objection, 
because I based my opinion on what you had to say on those matters. 

Dr. Smith. The trap net is not essentially different from the 
pound net in Lake Erie. A pound net is a net attached to stakes or 
piles, composed of a long leader running from the shore, a heart or 
partly inclosed portion, and a final, more perfectly inclosed portion, 
open at the top. Now, the trap net, instead of being supported by 
stakes in the bottom of the river, is held in place by anchors and 
buoys, but the principle of its operation is identical with that of the 
pound net, which is recognized as a legitimate apparatus in every 
State in the Union. 

Mr. Sharp. Could you say, Doctor, from your examination of the 
fisheries in the Great Lakes/why it is used in Lake Erie and not used 
in other lakes, and not liable to be used in other lakes if this amend- 
ment is carried ? 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 13 

Dr. Smith. Owing to the peculiar physical conditions of Lake Erie, 
such as do not exist in any other Great Lake, the pound net and its 
successor, the trap net, are used to great advantage. There were 
more pound nets set in Lake Erie than in any other body of water 
some years ago, because the nature of the bottom of the lake and 
the character of the fish were well adapted for that purpose. The 
pound net has been largely replaced by the trap nets in waters 
where there was doubtless overfishing by the pound nets, because 
the supply of whitefish and other species in Lake Erie fell off enor- 
mously. The State of Ohio, which is concerned with trap nets 
more than any other State in the Union, now regards the trap net 
as a proper form of apparatus when recommended in proper man- 
ner, and I have been given to understand by the State authorities 
that the former objections to the trap net no longer obtain, and that 
the trap-net fishermen will obey the laws, and there was no reason 
why the trap net should be regarded as a reprehensible form of 
apparatus. The damage which was done in former years was on 
account of the small size of the net and the fact that the net was 
concealed and did not show above the water. 

Mr. Smith. I would like to ask you what you have to say as to the 
decrease of fish in Lake Erie, whether there has been a decrease in 
Lake Erie? 

Dr. Smith. There is no doubt that it fell off, due to overfishing. 
There is now an apparent tendency upward. 

Mr. Smith. Will not the continuance of the trap nets tend to fur- 
ther decrease the supply? 

Dr. Smith. I would not like to be understood as not favoring the 
regulation of the trap-net fisheries. I think the size of the mesh 
ought to be very carefully considered, and the number of trap nets 
that may be set in a line, one to another and laterally on a given sec- 
tion of the shore, ought to be regulated just as we hope to regulate 
the pound net in the same waters. 

Mr. Smith. What do you say as to whether we should amend this 
section 48 or leave it in, as has been suggested 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). Mr. Smith, that is hardly a fair ques- 
tion, because it is not proposed to amend, but to suspend it until the 
commission can determine the proper way to proceed. 

Mr. Smith. What would you say as to that proposition? 

Dr. Smith. I would personally not like to see the trap net largely 
Aviped out, because there is a large amount of capital invested, and it 
has contributed a large amount of fishing for the market supplies, 
and, if properly regulated, I think the former objections to that appa- 
ratus would no longer hold. 

Mr. Cline. Doctor, when was your attention first called to this 
question with reference to the trap net % Have you ever raised any 
objection with your cocommissioners on this proposition? 

Dr. Smith. 1 have not discussed the matter. 

Mr. Cline. Not at all? 

Dr. Smith. Only incidentally, because there has been no oppor- 
tunity since my appointment to formally confer on these regulations. 

Mr. Cline. I want to ask you about the trap net. You are familiar 
with the fact that the Legislature of Ohio has provided that the 
meshes in the heart of the trap net shall be enlarged in 1915 or 1916? 

Dr. Smith. I understand there was some such regulation. 



14 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEKIES. 

Mr. Cline. And that is for the purpose of meeting the decreasing 
condition that exists there now? 

Dr. Smith. For the purpose of preventing the destruction of im- 
mature fish. 

Mr. Cline. Well, it is for the purpose of letting a great many more 
fish through than are now let through? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Cline. And consequently it will affect the future supply? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cline. If that is a proper view to take of the matter, do you 
not think the regulations ought to be more strict than they are now 
with reference to fishing by trap nets ? 

Dr. Smith. I have no doubt in the world that the trap net, if 
you decide to give it any assistance at all, ought to be very carefully 
regulated. 

Mr. Cline. I have understood that the pound net was much more 
effective in taking large quantities of fish out of the water than the 
trap net. 

Dr. Smith. The trap net is rather a small type of pound net. 

Mr. Cline. I understand; but it is the business of the man who 
engages in that business to get all the fish he can. 

Dr. Smith. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Cline. How do you explain the fact that the fishermen are 
now in favor of using the trap net when it is not as effective as you 
say the pound net is, when they want to get all the catch that they 
possibly can? 

Dr. Smith. The reason that the trap net has replaced the pound 
net to a great extent on these waters is on account of the less cost 
and the greater ease of manipulation. 

Mr. Sharp. Is it not also because it is a portable affair and can 
be moved, whereas the pound net is of stationary construction? 

Dr. Smith. The pound net must stay in one place. 

Mr. Bogers. What is the life of these trap nets, Dr. Smith? Is 
there any suggestion you can make in that regard? 

Dr. Smith. That depends a great deal on the care taken by the 
individual fishermen, but a trap net ought to last two or three years. 

Mr. Rogers. This treaty was concluded six years ago, lacking one 
month, and there would be probably two or three sets of trap nets 
bought by these fishermen since that time, since they were put upon 
notice of the enactment of that law. It seems to me, in view of those 
facts, that the argument of capital invested is not as strong as it 
might be considered otherwise. 

The Chairman. It is cheaper. A man could establish a trap-net 
fishery when he could not establish a pound-net fishery. 

Dr. Smith. It is the net of the small fisherman. He can construct 
a half dozen trap nets where he might be able to afford only one 
pound net. 

Mr. Vaughan. Is it not more destructive than the pound net? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Sharp. Is it not a fact that the fishing business is carried on 
by the small men, in small numbers? 

Dr. Smith. There are a great many small fishermen. It is their 
sole means of livelihood. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 15 

Mr. Cline. Is it not a fact that the present methods used in Lake 
Erie by the fishermen employed in that business have been so destruc- 
tive that the Government has suspended the catching of sturgeon, for 
instance, and some other varieties of fish, for the purpose of per- 
mitting them to increase to a sufficient number again? 

Dr. Smith. The methods of fishing in that lake have been exceed- 
ingly destructive, but I was not aware that the Government had any 
authority to suspend it. 

Mr. Cline. Has not the Legislature of Ohio suspended the taking 
of black bass and sturgeon in Lake Erie for a given time? 

Dr. Smith. No black bass are allowed to be caught with any kind 
of net in Ohio. That is because it is a kind of food fish sought by 
the angler. 

The Chairman. It is game. 

Mr. Rogers. Can a trap net be made into a pound net? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir; the leader and wings can be supported on 
stakes just as they are now supported. 

Mr. Rogers. So that there would not be a very great outlay even if 
trap nets had to be made over ? 

Dr. Smith. That is correct. The boll or heart of the trap net 
could not be made over into a pound net without trouble, because it 
only comes to the surface of the water, and the pound net extends 
sbove the surface of the water. 

Mr. Rogers. Have you any idea as to the nets used in Canadian 
waters? 

Dr. Smith. The trap net is not allowed in any Canadian waters. 

Mr. Cooper. That being so, that is a demonstration, is it not, that 
we should not have any treaty at all ? Does not that give the whole 
case away? Canada being absolutely unwilling to permit trap nets 
within her jurisdiction, that ends all this, does it not? 

Dr. Smith. That is due in part to the fact that the physical con- 
ditions are not favorable for such nets. 

Mr. Sharp. Is not that one of the reasons for not using them ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Coooper. Doctor, you think it is of very great importance to 
have a treaty with Canada for the international regulation of these 
fisheries ? 

Dr. Smith. I regard the regulations proposed in this bill as mere 
details. The main thing is to recognize the principle of Federal con- 
trol over these fisheries. The regulations will come along in due 
time, as we gain greater experience and are able to perfect them. 

Mr. Cooper. You consider it of great importance to have this 
attended to? 

Dr. Smith. Of enormous importance; it involves $30,000,000 in 
fish annually. 

Mr. Cooper. Now, do you not think that if we strike out this 
item 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). Suspend it. 

Mr. Cooper. That is practically what it means, as legislation is 
carried on in this House, because we have been four years going 
on 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). You had better be sure that you are 
right. 



16 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEBIES. 

Mr. Cooper. I wish to say this: That the gentleman from Ohio 
yesterday said that perhaps I was attending to the interests of my 
constituents such as are on the borders of Lake Superior; but we are 
very strict in the regulation of fishing, as we ought to be, and I 
want to say that if we amended this bill by striking out regulation 48, 
we would have to start all over again, would we not. Doctor? 

Dr. Smith. I would not recommend striking it out. I would 
recommend a suspension of its operation until the two commissioners 
can get together and decide what is the best thing to be done. I am 
not responsible for these regulations. I have no pride of paternity 
in these regulations and it is important that I should be permitted 
to look over the question before I commit myself. 

Mr. Cooper. We propose to substitute for the regulation adopted 
by the commissioners a suspension of it, which is not the thing to 
which Canada agreed at all. That throws the whole thing up, does 
it not? 

Dr. Smith. There was a practical suspension recognized, because 
the date when it became effective was fixed two years ago. 

The Chairman. Now, we have made a change in another matter. 
The Saginaw matter has been changed and that does not affect the 
regulations at all. 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Cooper. Oh, it does not affect the regulations ? The other day 
Dr. Smith said that the Canadian Government had ratified the 
regulations, and the point is insisted on that we must do likewise 
or else throw the whole business up and leave the question open. 
That is what Dr. Smith said the other day, and that is what I re- 
ferred to in my question. Dr. Smith the other day was extremely 
urgent — were you not, Doctor ? — in presenting to us the importance of 
passing this at the earliest possible moment. 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir ; and I am so now. 

Mr. Cooper. And you said that Canada had ratified these regula- 
tions without any change, and the point now is that Ave must now do 
likewise or throw the whole business open again. Now, is that so? 

Dr. Smith. That is correct. I would regard this temporary sus- 
pension of the regulation as not contradictory of that attitude, but 
that is for the committee to say. 

Mr. Cooper. It is a change which will not be ratified. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Cooper, might I ask you just one question to get 
your view of this situation? Assume, as is a matter of fact, that 
these regulations were promulgated by Canada four or five years ago, 
at least four years ago, to meet existing conditions as they appeared 
to the commission, which, we will say for the sake of argument, were 
so, and yet those conditions have so changed as to render the making 
of these regulations unnecessary, because these reforms have been 
brought about; would you still insist that this would change the ex- 
isting conditions? 

Mr. Cooper. I do not think the reforms have been brought about 
at all. If these reforms have been brought about and the changes 
were made in the trap nets, then these regulations would not affect 
the industry at all, but the regulations specifically point out the 
difference between pound nets and trap nets, and Dr. Smith would 
seem to indicate that it is of no importance, but it strikes me that 
the definition is vital. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 17 

Mr. Sharp. The regulations say that they can be used inter- 
changeably. 

Mr. Cooper. Now. I call the attention of the chairman of the com- 
mittee to the definition on page 6 of the bill, which reads as follows: 

Pound net : A net attached to stakes or piles, composed of a long leader 
running from the shore, a heart or partly inclosed portion, and a final, more 
perfectly inclosed portion, open at the top. called crib, car. or pot, to which is 
sometimes added one or more inclosures called " spillers." On the Pacific coast 
a pound net is often called locally a " trap." 

Now, under the definition in this regulation, the interchangeable 
use over there would not affect what is intended in the law here, 
because if they had called it a trap net, it would not affect the law 
any, but here is what they say later in these regulations : 

Trap net: As used in the Great Lakes, a net similar in construction to a 
pound net, but with the terminal chamber or pot closed at the top and bottom. 

And yet we have been told here repeatedly by men from Ohio and 
by Dr. Smith that there is no substantial difference between them. 
Why, the difference is vital. The fish in one instance get into a net 
that is open at the top and in the other they get into an inclosure 
absolutely tight top and bottom. Now, Dr. Smith said a moment 
ago that Canada would not permit over there anything like these 
trap nets, and would not have them at all. We know that they are 
now used indiscriminately in Lake Erie. Dr. Smith said the other 
day that the catch of white fish had decreased 80 per cent in Lake 
Erie. 

Mr. Sharp. But they are never caught by trap nets. 

Mr. Cooper. And he also said that it was of extreme importance 
to have this ratified at once, and that any change would throw it all 
open again. That is his express language. 

The Chairman. He said if you do not adopt any regulation at all, 
if you do not pass this bill. 

Mr. Porter. I understood you to say that no whitefish are caught 
in trap nets. 

Mr. Sharp. No, sir. 

Mr. Porter. Then there are no whitefish to be affected at all. 

Mr. Cooper. I would like to know why a small whitefish would not 
run into a trap net. It is the same as any other, and nobody can 
make me believe to the contrary. It is immaterial how often they 
say it. A little whitefish will run around in a net the same as in any 
other place, and if he gets to a place that is closed top and bottom 
he will stay in there. 

Mr. Porter. Dr. Smith, how about these trap nets catching white- 
fish? 

Dr. Smith. They do catch whitefish. 

Mr. Porter. And to what extent? 

Dr. Smith. Not so largely as the pound nets formerly did. They 
catch any kind of fish that swim in the water of Lake Erie. 

Mr. Sharp. Now. Mr. Cooper, I want to reply to you a moment. 
I have only the word of the practical fishermen of Ohio that the 
whitefish are not caught in those nets. I want to reply to the ob- 
servation of the gentleman from Wisconsin. He emphasized the fact 
that there is a great difference between the pound nets and trap nets, 
because the trap net is so fixed that it will not allow the fish to get 

34699—14 2 



18 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

out at the top or bottom, but he overlooked one essential, and that is 
this: That it is not necessary that the fish should be able to get out 
at the top or bottom, because if the size of the mesh is so enlarged 
that they can get out through the sides, it does not matter whether 
the top or bottom is closed. As a matter of fact, I have been told 
during the past four or five years that there have been such agree- 
ments. We had a State senator here th6 other day who helped frame 
this law which increased the size of the meshes. So that, if that is 
true, the argument of the gentleman from Wisconsin is of little 
avail, because it does not matter that the fish can not get out of the 
top or bottom if there is an increase in the size of the mesh which 
will permit them to get out at the sides. 

Mr. Cooper. What would be the sense in closing up the top and 
bottom if the meshes are so wide? 

Mr. Porter. The game fish will jump out over the top if it is open. 

Dr. Smith. Not many of them. 

Mr. Porter. Well, I have seen some of them do it. 

Dr. Smith. Not many of them. But this statement of Mr. 
Cooper's is not vital, because the fish do not go out of the top of a 
pound net ; and the reason the top is left open is because it is often 
suspended out of the water. 

Mr. Linthicum. Doctor, I want to ask you a question in regard to 
the use of trap nets. Will that in any way affect the fishing on 
Puget Sound? Will that affect the salmon fisheries in regard to the 
fish getting to the spawning grounds? Will that benefit the salmon 
fish? The reason I ask that is because if it does it may be solely 
limited to Lake Erie. 

Dr. Smith. It is practically limited to Lake Erie now. 

Mr. Linthicum. Trap nets are not used to any extent elsewhere? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir ; and not permitted to any extent in the Great 
Lakes. 

Mr. Cline, What do they take the salmon catch with ? 

Dr. Smith. The salmon in Puget Sound are taken with pound 
nets, which are now called traps, gills nets, and purse seines, and so 
forth. 

Mr. Cooper. I want to remind you that the other day you did not 
express the same views as you do now in regard to the ratification 
of the regulation. You wanted it ratified just exactly as Canada 
ratified it at that time, and you told the committee half a dozen 
times — here was your testimony : 

The laws of the different States were adopted by the international commis- 
sioners and are incorporated in this section. There is no radical departure 
from existing legislation on behalf of the States. In some cases the States 
were unable to act, but as far as they do, these regulations have really been 
strongly indorsed by the States. I have letters from the proper officials of all 
the boundary States, with perhaps one exception, strongly advocating this bill 
or a similar bill that will give effect to the treaty. 

Dr. Smith. This regulation would never have been put in this 
schedule if it had not been for the insistence of the Ohio authorities, 
who at that time were strongly opposed to the trap net. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, is that so? It was put in at the urgent solici- 
tation of Ohio and subsequently indorsed by all the other States? 

The Chairman. That has been stated here a half a dozen times. 

Mr. Cooper. I did not know that. I have not heard it. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 19 

The Chairman. There has been a change in the construction of 
the trap nets and Ohio's position has changed. 

Mr. Cooper. And all the other States asked for it. and Canada did 
not want to have the trap net. It looks to me like local interests 
against the interests of the general public. I am perfectly frank in 
saying that. 

The Chairman. We have a fish commissioner here who favors 
trap nets. The Canadian commissioner might not favor trap nets. 
We have adopted a regulation prohibiting trap nets, and I am 
unwilling to put our commissioner entirely within the power of the 
Canadian commissioner when he stands up here and says that he is 
in favor of a trap net. 

Mr. Ainey. Properly regulated. 

Mr. Sharp. In order to get this matter before the committee I 
move the adoption of this amendment to the bill : 

Provided also. That the enforcement of regulation No. 48 is suspended pend- 
ing revision by the International Fisheries Commission and the approval of said 
revision by Congress. 

That is to be inserted on page 3, section 1, after line 3. 
Mr. Linthicum. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to that 
amendment, to add to the amendment these words : 

But this shall in nowise preclude said commission from regulating the con- 
struction and operation of trap nets. 

It appears to me from what the doctor says that they do not want 
to be precluded from the regulation of trap nets, and by adding that 
amendment I think it would give them the right to control and 
regulate the use of trap nets wherever they are used. 

Mr. Sharp. I accept that amendment. That puts it into the hands 
of the commission to regulate its use and prescribe regulations for 
its use. 

Mr. Ainey. What is the conclusion of Dr. Smith as to whether or 
not this bill, if passed in the form as amended, would necessitate 
going back to the Dominion Parliament for approval. 

Dr. Smith. I think the bill as amended would not have to be sub- 
mitted to Parliament, because the regulations are almost identical 
with the regulations passed by Parliament, except some change in 
the date. 

Mr. Ainey. Did you observe the phraseology of the amendment to 
the amendment that Mr. Linthicum suggested? 

Dr. Smith. I did not construe it. 

Mr. Ainey. I would like to have the amendment and the amend- 
ment to the amendment reported again and invite the attention of 
the doctor to them. 

(The amendment and the amendment to the amendment were 
again reported.) 

Mr. Ainey. There is an authorization to the commission that it 
seems to me is quite different from a suspension of the operation of 
certain of these rules. Personally, I can not see why that would 
require the matter to be sent back to Parliament. 

Mr. Sharp. But does not the bill itself, Mr. Ainey. contemplate 
that this regulation shall be made by that commission ? 

Dr. Smith. This amendment gives much larger powers to this 
commission than are conferred by any other part of the bill. 

Mr. Linthicum. It does not give you power 



20 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Rogers (interposing). Suppose that that amendment should 
say that sections 1 to 48 should be suspended pending negotiations. 
Could it be said that that could not be taken up by the Dominion 
authorities? It dees not make any difference how small the amend- 
ment is, if it covers anything involved in the treaty the result is that 
the whole thing will be thrown wide open, which Dr. Smith said the 
other day he was extremely anxious to nvoid. 

The Chairman. Well, nobody took that position as to Saginaw 
Bay, and this bill requires this commission to get together and their 
report will be here by the next Congress. 

Mr. Rogers. I am not certain but what that same argument would 
not apply to Saginaw Bay. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that we ought to have Dr. Smith's 
opinion as to Mr. Ainey's suggestion. 

Mr. Cline. I would like to ask Dr. Smith a question for informa- 
tion. It seems to me an absurd proposition to suspend the operation 
of the device and then to confer authority to regulate it. 

Mr. Porter. They prohibit the use of trap nets and then suspend 
the operation of that prohibition, and that leaves the power in the 
hands of the commission to regulate it. 

Mr. Cline. What are you going to regulate? Something that you 
can not use after you regulate it? 

Mr. Porter. The prohibition against its use is suspended, and if 
Mr. Linthicum wants to regulate it 

Dr. Smith (interposing). This gives the power to the commission 
which Congress has reserved to itself. 

Mr. Cline. Personally I would like to protect our folks on this 
side of the line, but I also want to see this treaty carried out, and I 
would like to supplement Mr. Ainey's inquiry by asking from you, 
Doctor, whether, if we passed this suspension now, it will not vitiate 
the whole agreement, so far as Canada is concerned, and ourselves, 
too, until the matter is referred back to both legislative bodies for 
approval? I mean Mr. Sharp's amendment. 

Dr. Smith. I have not so regarded it, but I would not like to pose 
as an authority on a matter of that kind. 

Mr. Ainey. On the answer to that question depends the way in 
which I shall vote on this proposition. 

Mr. Cooper. If one man suggests to another a proposition for a 
contract, a written contract, the other man can not send it back 
accepting everything except some little point in it. The minds must 
agree entirely on the proposition, otherwise the whole proposition is 
up in the air. 

Mr. Sharp. What would you suggest in reference to the Maine 
proposition ? 

Mr. Cooper. I have a suggestion right here. The treaty is a con- 
tract. Of course, it can be set aside by the law of Congress. Under 
the Constitution it is made the law and can be set aside subsequently, 
of course, but until it is repealed it is the law. Now, they make a 
law exactly like it in Canada, and the mutual agreement is such that 
it shall be a uniform agreement between the two nations. Article 2 
of the treaty says : 

It shall be the duty of this International Fisheries Commission, within six 
months after being named, to prepare a system of uniform and common inter- 
national regulations. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 21 

These commissioners Have met pursuant to that treaty, and pur- 
suant to that article have fixed these regulations in a certain form. 
So far as the trap net is concerned, it is prohibited entirely after the 
1st day of January, 1916, and Canada has passed that law. It is pre- 
tended that we can go to work and suspend the going into effect of 
the regulation agreed upon under that treaty in spite of the language 
of article 2 — 

A system of uniform and common international regulations. 

It is just as different from the Canada regulation as it is adopted 
as it can be. There is an absolute prohibition in the Canada agree- 
ment, and we propose to modify that, notwithstanding. What did 
Dr. Smith say the other day in his testimony ? He said : 

The Canadian Government has ratified these regulations, and the point that is 
insisted on now is that we must do likewise or else throw the whole business 
open again. 

Mr. Sharp. Would you say that our action a few moments ago in 
reference to the Maine situation would necessitate referring the whole 
matter back again? 

Mr. Cooper. I think, if there is anything that can be looked upon 
as a modification of the regulation, the other party to the treaty 
would have an absolute right to consider it. and the whole thing will 
be up in the air. 

Mr. Sharp. Well, will the matter upon which we passed a while 
ago have an effect 

Mr. Cooper (interposing). Oh, that is an arbitrary date. 

Mr. Sharp. But we do not prohibit the use of trap nets- 



Mi*. Cooper (interposing). No; but you change the agreement 
which Canada made with us. 

The Chairman. If your position is correct, we have destroyed the 
treaty, because we have stricken out Saginaw Bay. The Canadian 
Parliament adopted these regulations applying to Saginaw Bay. and 
we have stricken that out of these regulations. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, we did that because we were assured 
here 

The Chairman (interposing). No: we were not. We had no as- 
surances whatever. It will not have to go back to the Canadian 
Parliament. 

Mr. Cooper. The only reason we passed it is this: We were as- 
sured that the Canadian commissioner and the United States com- 
missioner had agreed that Saginaw Bay ought to go out; but the 
United States commissioner has no authority to bind the Canadian 
commissioner. 

The Chairman. Not at all. 

Mr. Cooper. That might not meet with the approval of the Cana- 
dian Government. 

The Chairman. But we never thought it would have to go back 
to be ratified. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, there can not be any modification of a treaty 
by one party without the other party agreeing to it. Mr. Chairman, 
do you think that after the United States Government has agreed 
with the Canadian Government that certain things shall be done, that 
the Canadian Parliament has the right to modify the doing of those 
things ? 



22 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEKIES. 

The Chairman. I think we can adopt a set of regulations and we 
can modify them if the modifications do not affect the situation of 
the other party. 

Mr. Vaughn. If the suspension of putting into effect all of the 
provisions until the 5th day of March, as we have already done, does 
not necessitate the throwing- up of the Avhole thing, why should the 
suspension of one of them 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). One out of sixty-six. 

Mr. Vaughan. In other words, we have oniy postponed or deferred 
the going into effect of all these regulations until the 5th of March, 
and that necessarily includes the right to suspend the operation of 
any one of them, and if we can suspend the putting into effect of all 
of them until the 5th of March, certainly we can suspend the opera- 
tion of any one of them until any time we choose, without making 
it necessary to go back to the Canadian Parliament for ratification. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, that argument is entirely unsound, if 
the gentleman from Texas remembers the language of the treaty. 
The treaty provides : 

The present convention shall be duly ratified by the President of the United 
States, by and with the advice and consent of tbe Senate thereof, etc. 

The Chairman. That was done. 

Mr. Rogers. Now, the question comes up in regard to giving effect 
to the provisions of the treaty. There is no date provided in the 
treaty when that can occur. It can occur in 10 years or 15 years or 
100 years, provided that in the meantime Canada does not withdraw 
its ratification. So that we could have selected 1912 or 1913 or 1915 
as the date for the going into effect of the provisions of the treaty, 
but whatever day we selected we have to meet the mind of the Cana- 
dian Government and enact what they have enacted or else it all 
goes back to them. 

The Chairman. Well, they might repeal that law. 

Mr. Cooper. Dr. Smith said the other day that we could not change 
the regulations without 

The Chairman (interposing). Well, we have not changed the 
regulations. 

Dr. Smith. Would not the position of Canada be exactly the same 
in case Canada amended one of these regulations? If it was material 
we might reject the whole thing, and if it was not material we would 
not. 

Mr. Sharp. That is right. 

Mr. Linthicum. I ask leave to substitute this amendment for the 
amendment I offered a while ago : 

But said commission shall have the rigbt to regulate the construction and 
operation of trap nets. 

I did not realize before that there was any recognition of trap nets. 

Mr. Sharp. I think we have the right to do that anyway. 

Mr. Linthicum. I do not know. 

Mr. Sharp. We will not have that right if the trap nets are abso- 
lutely stricken out. 

Mr. Linthicum. Doctor, have you the right at present to regulate 
the construction and operation of trap nets? 

Dr. Smith. Only in this section 48. 

Mr. Linthicum. But that is suspended. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 23 

Mr. Vaughn. But does the law give you the right to suspend this 
regulation ? 

Dr. Smith. Only when provided by Congress. 

Mr. Ainey. I would like to know whether we have not before us, 
or in the files of the committee, a copy of the bill as passed by the 
Dominion Parliament. The phraseology of that law might throw 
some light on the manner of the approval of these regulations. I 
notice that in the hearings we have just a statement from Dr. Smith 
that these regulations were approved by Parliament. 

Mr. Cooper. He said no change had been made by Parliament. 

Mr. Ainey. But our bill is what we are now discussing, and not 
the regulations. I would like to ask how these regulations were 
adopted by the Canadian Parliament? 

Mr. Cooper. He says just as they are here. 

Mr. Ainey. Well, we ought to have the phraseology of the bill 
that was introduced and passed by Parliament. 

Mr. Sharp. I want this bill passed. This whole industry ought to 
be regulated, but I have no reason to believe that the statement of 
Dr. Smith is incorrect. The people of Ohio did demand this regula- 
tion, but conditions are changed and I doubt whether the Canadian 
people would stand out for the enforcement of this regulation when 
the Ohio authorities say that there is no longer existing the evil 
covered by that particular regulation, and therefore our objection is 
withdrawn. How could the Canadians insist upon it in the face of the 
withdrawal of the objection by the people who first insisted upon it? 

Mr. Cline. That is only speculation. 

Mr. Sharp. Well, the speculation is so remote 

Mr. Cline (interposing). Do you not understand that the people 
who make the regulations shall have the right to say what the regu- 
lations shall consist of? 

Mr. Linthicum. Under this bill the trap nets were entirely 
stricken out 

Mr. Cline (interposing). Oh, take anything else that is in the bill. 

Mr. Linthicum. The commission had the right to regulate all 
other kinds of nets that are allowed according to these regulations. 
The commission had the right to regulate the construction and op- 
eration of them, but trap nets being disallowed, they can not regu- 
late the operation of them. 

Mr. Cline. If they have the right to put in trap nets, they cer- 
tainly have the right to regulate them. 

Mr. Smith. The bill provides : 

That no further or other regulations or amendments thereto under the pro- 
visions of said treaty of April 11, 1908. shall be adopted or have the force or 
effect of law without action by the Congress of the United States. 

That would seem to prevent us from doing it. 
Mr. Linthicum. I think that is very essential if you are going to 
leave trap nets in the bill. 

The Chairman. I notice on page 13, regulation 59, as follows: 

No ti'ap nets shall be used for the capture of fish in these treaty waters. 

So, if we suspended regulation 48 it would leave things just as 
they are now. 

Dr. Smith. That applies to the Lake of the Woods, Rainy Lake, 
and Rainy River. 



24 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEKIES. 

Mr. Sharp. I ask for a vote. 

(The question was taken on the Linthicum substitute amendment, 
and the chair announced that the ayes had it.) 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, in view of the importance of this 
matter, I ask for the ayes and noes on this amendment. 

The Chairman. All in favor of Mr. Linthicum's amendment will 
answer "aye." 

Mr. Vaughn. Before I vote I would like to ask Dr. Smith a ques- 
tion. Doctor, under the law creating this commission, has the com- 
mission power to prescribe regulations to be approved both by the 
Canadian Government and by the United States Government in 
the matter of trap nets? Has the commission already the power 
to adopt regulations governing the use of fish traps ? 

Dr. Smith. The only power they have is conferred by Congress. 

Mr. Vaughn. And by the treaty. 

Dr. Smith. But the treaty does not give the commission any power 
to make regulations. It can only recommend regulations for the 
approval of the respective Governments. 

Mr. Sharp. I have no objection to it except that it might complicate 
the whole matter to such an extent that I would not like to vote for it. 

(The roll was called, and the following members voted "aye": 
Messrs. Cline, Linthicum, Difenderfer, Stedman, Smith, Walker, 
Vaughan, Fairchild, and Porter. The following voted "no": 
Messrs. Cooper, Ainey. and Rogers.) 

The Chairman. Now, the question is on the original amendment 
offered by Mr. Sharp. 

Mr. Cooper. I ask for the ayes and noes. 

Mr. Rogers. I thought we were voting on the main question, and I 
should like to withdraw my vote of " no " and vote " aye " on the 
amendment to the amendment. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the change will be made. 

(The question was taken on the Sharp amendment, and the fol- 
lowing members voted " aye " : Messrs. Sharp, Cline, Linthicum, 
Difenderfer, Stedman, Smith. Walker, Vaughan, Fairchild, Porter. 
Rogers, and the chairman. The following voted " no " : Messrs. 
Sharp. Cooper, Ainey. and Rogers.) 

Mr. Ainey (when his name was called). Mr. Chairman, I shall 
have to vote " no " on that, because I am fearful that it would inter- 
fere with the treaty. 

Mr. Linthicum. Mr. Chairman, my amendment reads, " but said 
commission shall have the right." etc. I think it would be better to 
make it " the commission " instead of " said commission." I ask 
unanimous consent to make that change. 

The Chairman. Without objection the change will be made. 

Mr. Cooper. I wonder if the members of the committee want that 
to become a law without the consent of the Canadian Parliament? 

The Chairman. Giving the power to this commission? 

Mr. Cooper. The commission is to recommend a new style of trap 
net. and Ave make it go into effect 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). Are you not willing to have the Ameri- 
can Congress say how it shall go into effect? 

Mr. Cooper. Provided the Canadian Parliament agrees to it. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 

X 



